How do we know Santa Claus doesn't exist?

You can look in most any shopping center at some point during the Christmas season and see the real Santa Clause. That's right, the guy with the red suit and fake beard. That's Santa Clause just about as real as he gets to those who sit on his lap till old enough to not be fooled anymore.

Christ on the other hand comes into the heart of the born again believer and you are changed. Your desires change, your talk and actions changes, your thoughts change. Your life changes. The proof of God lives in us, the fruit of it is the changed life. It's not a change you can produce on your own and have last, our self change is a temporary and failed effort. It's observable what comes from Christ and some around us don't like what they see but it's real. You won't disprove God by tricky comparisons with Santa Clause. And you can't disprove God to those who know him, in fact you can't prove He doesn't exist at all. But we who are changed are changed at the heart level forever and the gift of it is all we did is stopped fighting and agreed.

BigV said:

I have to disappoint you further, I'm afraid. According to the Gospels, people who saw Jesus, thought they saw John the Baptist risen from the dead. So there was doubt as to the God/man identity.

Source:

Mark 6:14 King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”

Luke 19:18 Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say I am?” 19 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life.” 20 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “God’s Messiah.”

Click to expand...

The only thing correct about this post is that you have disappointed further.

1. Herod "heard" about this.
2. John the baptist appears as a claim beside several other people who have been dead for hundreds of years. Meaning they are claiming His spirit, not His appearance. Nor is there any indication that the crowd knew what John the baptist looked like rather than responding to what they have heard about him.

BigV said:

Also, consider this. God/Jesus is now doing his work through other people. Perhaps that's how Santa is doing his work also?

Click to expand...

Well yeah...there was only ever one big fat guy who brought presents to our house when I was a kid, and it wasn't Santa.

(I love my dad, but if the beard fits...)

BigV said:

So, how do we know the truth about Santa?

Click to expand...

Well, just like if we were talking about the existence of God, we need a little definition of who we mean by Santa Claus.

Yes, by the way, ones understand there was a real man named Saint Nicolas, who gave gifts to children. And at this moment I consider that meant to children who could have been in very hard times . . . who wore rags and had no shoes and the death rate for children was what ones in the United States might not have a clue . . . what it was like, then.

So . . . yeah . . . I can see that at times there could be a real person who would do that. There can be the horrible conditions in history, but also certain people who step up, including like also when people in Nazi Germany risked all to watch out for Jews and others who were on the S.S. hit list. So, yes, this could support the possibility that there was at least one person like Nicolas.

But that's not the definition The present Santa lives at the North Pole, has his wife, and his elves who help him. And he prepares toys for children around the world, for Christmas, and carries them in his sleigh which is drawn through the air by his reindeer . . . delivering all the gifts in one Christmas night . . . to billions, now, of children.

Now, how to I argue against this?

Well . . . when I was a kid, maybe 4 years old. I knew Santa could read my thoughts, and I was not allowed to stay up until midnight to see him. But I decided . . . since I wanted this to be true, of course . . . that I would think a message to Santa and make a deal > I could stay up to see him, and we would pretend it never happened, and no one would know > I think this is what I arranged > at about age four

But I had to go to bed, on time, and I knew if I stayed quiet in my room until my mom and dad went to bed, I could fall to sleep and sleep through Santa's visit. So, at my bedtime, I went right to bed, but demanded they also go early; and I made some case, which I do not remember, for sure, why two grown adults had to go to bed when I did; I think it was something like, we're getting up early for the presents so we all need to get a good night's sleep. And then I was quiet in my room, could still hear them downstairs; so I did a follow-up, to make sure they got in bed. And then, yes, they did; and things were quiet; so then I listened to make sure they were quiet, and I snuck down the stairs to spend hours waiting. So I wouldn't fall asleep during those hours, I was going to sit or crouch on the stairs - - around a corner of the stair wall, out of Santa's view from the fireplace.

But already presents were on the floor!!!! I understood how Santa had gotten my thoughts and came early, the reason being to show me if I could change the rules not to see him, then he could change the rules and come early.

But this doesn't prove he does not exist, does it?

I think the part about him living on the North Pole and in one night flying gifts to billions of children might be taken into evidence, though.

nm

BigV said:

I recommend you re-read the Peter's Confession passages. And, what is very telling, after each account f Peter's confession, Jesus warns not to tell anyone about him.

Apparently, it wasn't just Herod who heard about it. The disciples heard about it too.

But this is getting off track from Santa.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that reading Randel Helms is more important than remaining focused upon and figuring out the ESSENCE of ... a big dude dressed in red with my next video game in the haul of his sleigh?

BigV said:

Well, this is interesting. How, may I ask, did you determine that God indeed helped you forgive, rather than a belief in God helping you to forgive?

For example, some people believe that a rabbit's foot helps them out. Let's say a student goes to an exam with a rabbit's foot in his pocket. He forgets the answer to an important question, then rubs the foot, and voila, he remembers the answer clearly. If this were a true story, would it prove that a rabbit's foot can help people remember, among other things?

Click to expand...

Do you talk with such aplomb to all women who might share some sensitive part of their lives with you? You might want to rethink that.

BigV said:

So, should we be agnostics regarding Santa who lives on the North Pole?

Click to expand...

At some point, BigV, you might consider just dropping the Socratic pretense and realize that somewhere here, you're actually going to need to explain YOUR OWN methodology.

'Cuz if there is one thing I can't abide is an atheist who has no real theoretical substance, leaving me to be an agnostic as to whether HE actually knows which way is up or down in grounding an epistemic methodology that could have a one size fits all option.

BigV said:

What's wrong with asking Christians HOW and WHY they believe a personal God exists?

And how do Christians distinguish between imaginary things and reality?

Say you smoke a mushroom and then start seeing pixies in your room. Did your eyes just opened to a new reality or are you simply hallucinating? I find it interesting that John the Baptist, for example, and Jesus, to some extent, loved fasting in the desert for days. I mean, what kind of a mental state would these guys have after a few weeks of this practice?

And yet, there are plenty of modern humans, that are bying leather-bound books written by or on behalf of such individuals.

Amazing stuff.

Click to expand...

What's wrong with...? Are you kidding me? The answer is to "what's wrong with it" is that if you, the inquirer don't know your own method or at least some general but substantive notion about 'how' you, yourself, believe anything, then you're in no position to challenge anyone else. It's a matter of epistemological integrity: The sauce for the goose (i.e. the Christian) is good for the gander (i.e. the Atheist/Skeptic). You either operate in this bilateral principle of communal integrity OR your forfeit your feint of integrity, even if you're essentially just saying and asking things in a more or less "honest" fashion.

So, you don't get to come in here, lay down the gauntlet in front of everyone and then wait there, wringing your hands with self-congratulating delight as you apply the acid of Socratic questioning. That's NOT how it's going to go down here! Got it?

BigV said:

It's a serious question about the methodology used to determine the difference between a real person and a fiction.

Click to expand...

Since the only way I've ever seen anything come into being is when someone created it, it stands to reason, a God/creator must exist. Or we could just go with "It all happened by itself.".

Wonder which methodology the OP chooses, because the best I can figure most Atheists choose "Poof", and here we are.

One of the articles of faith you will run into at times for some ideological atheists is the belief that babies are born atheists. That this is a belief without proof...aka, an 'article of faith'... is something I try to point out at times, but I don't think I always help them the way I word it, as it tends to show that kind of atheism is really a faith-based type (in other words, a religion of a kind). But because it is that way, it isn't as susceptible to reason as one might expect, I surmise, because it would involve humbly admitting one simply had a substitute new religion, when the self-identity was to proudly feel above religion.

2PhiloVoid said:

What's wrong with...? Are you kidding me? The answer is to "what's wrong with it" is that if you, the inquirer don't know your own method or at least some general but substantive notion about 'how' you, yourself, believe anything, then you're in no position to challenge anyone else. It's a matter of epistemological integrity: The sauce for the goose (i.e. the Christian) is good for the gander (i.e. the Atheist/Skeptic). You either operate in this bilateral principle of communal integrity OR your forfeit your feint of integrity, even if you're essentially just saying and asking things in a more or less "honest" fashion.

So, you don't get to come in here, lay down the gauntlet in front of everyone and then wait there, wringing your hands with self-congratulating delight as you apply the acid of Socratic questioning. That's NOT how it's going to go down here! Got it?

Click to expand...